Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-01-21APPROVED 2/3/87 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION January 21, 1987 - 7:00 PM Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P P P P ROLL CALL: Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Summerell, P P Higgins, Silva A. CONSENT CALENDAR: A-1 Minutes - December 16, 1986 Planning Commission Meeting A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, TO APPROVE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 16, 1986, AS PRESENTED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Higgins NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Leipzig, Summerell, Silva MOTION PASSED A-2 Minutes - January 6, 1987 Planning Commission Meeting A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, TO APPROVE MINUTES OF JANUARY 6, 1987, WITH.CORRECTIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Summerell, Silva NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Higgins MOTION PASSED A-3 RESOLUTIONS HONORING PAST COMMISSIONERS FRANK MIRJAHANGIR, MARC PORTER, RICHARD ROWE, GRACE WINCHELL, JOHN ERSKINE AND PAST CHAIRMAN TOM LIVENGOOD A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, TO APPROVE RESOLUTIONS (NO. 1370 THROUGH NO. 1375) HONORING PAST COMMISSIONERS FRANK MIRJAHANGIR, MARC PORTER, RICHARD ROWE, GRACE WINCHELL, JOHN ERSKINE AND PAST CHAIRMAN TOM LIVENGOOD, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Summerell, Silva NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Livengood, Pierce, Higgins, B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS: B-1 Commissioner Livengood presented a plaque to Jeanine Frank honoring her outstanding service with the City. B-2 Chairman Pierce requested that staff respond �o-a letter regarding the Mola Construction site located on Pacific Coast Highway received from James Smith. B-3 A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO SCHEDULE FOR THE FEBRUARY 3, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA, AS A "B"-ITEM, CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE FOOTBRIDGE LOCATED NEAR RANCHO VIEW SCHOOL AND LANCASTER DRIVE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Summerell, Silva NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Livengood, Pierce, Higgins, 1 PC Minutes - 1/21/87 -2- (7236d) C-1 APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT'S r • CONDITIONAL EXCEPT• NO. :.-94 (PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT: CAROLYN DEDEN Conditional Exception No. 86-94 is a request to permit a six foot high block wall to encroach five feet into the required fifteen foot front yard setback at 3402 Venture Drive (south side of Venture Drive approximately 1,000 feet west of Sundancer Lane). On December 3, 1986, the Board of Zoning Adjustments denied Conditional Exception No. 86-94 by a vote of 5 to 0. The applicant has initiated the appeal because in her opinion full consideration was not given to all the facts that were available.at the time of the hearing. On April 11, 1986, a permit was issued for the east wall which required a 15 foot front setback. The property owner extended the east wall 5 feet into the required front yard setback which was not in compliance with the building permit issued nor in compliance with an approval for a wall on the west side by the Board of Zoning Adjustments. A prior entitlement, Conditional Exception No. 85-34, permitted a five (5) foot encroachment for the wall on the opposite side of the property in order to provide a security wall around a front yard swimming pool. Conditional Exception No. 85-34 did not allow a five (5) foot encroachment for the east wall. In addition, as of December 31, 1986, the unpermitted fence extension has not been reviewed or approved by the Trinidad Island Homeowner's Association's architectural review committee. Staff advised the applicant that in order to obtain a building permit for the encroachment, a variance would need to be approved by the BZA. On December 3, 1986, the BZA denied the applicant's request for a 5 foot encroachment for the east wall. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt pursuant to Class 5 Section 15305 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. COASTAL STATUS: Pursuant to Section 989.5.3.13(g), the proposed project is categorically excluded from a coastal development permit. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Uphold the Board of Zoning Adjustment's denial and deny the appeal based on the findings outlined in the report dated January 6, 1987. PC Minutes - 1/21/87 -3- (7236d) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Carolyn Deden, applicant, spoke in support of her request. She presented permits issued to her by the City to construct a wall. She does not feel that full consideration was given to her by the Board of Zoning Adjustments because all of the facts were not presented. Francis Goodyear, 3422 Venture Drive, spoke in opposition to the request. He paid for one half of the wall before construction and he stated that he objects to the height of the wall which is 7 feet high in places and its encroachment into th front yard setback. George Deden, applicant, stated that the block wall is over six feet high in some places; however, the top course is level and does comply with the height requirements depending on the point at which it is measured if one includes the grading within the planters. He further stated that he cannot seek approval from the homeowner's association until he gets approval from the City. There were no other persons available to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SILVA, SECOND BY SUMMERELL, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-94, WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Pierce, Summerell, Silva NOES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood, Higgins ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED Commissioner Livengood suggested that an additional finding be included in the findings for denial further stating the position of the Planning Commission. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO DENY CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-94, WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Higgins, Summerell, Silva NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 1/21/87 -4- (7236d) FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. Because the subject property is an average size lot (6,480 square feet), has a normal rectangular configuration, and lacks unique topographic features (the site is flat accept for normal grading requirements), there does not appear to be exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land, buildings or premises involved that does not apply generally to property or class of uses in the same district. 2. As the evidence presented showed the subject property can be fully developed within regular established setbacks, such a Conditional Exception is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. 3. Granting of Conditional Exception No. 86-94 would constitute a special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon properties in the vicinity. ADDITIONAL FINDING OF PLANNING COMMISSON: 1. Based on written documentation the 5 foot encroachment and the finished height of the existing wall is not in compliance with the variance granted July 3, 1985, nor does it comply with the fence permit and site plan issued April 11, 1986. C-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.-86-58 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-110 APPLICANT: ARCO PETROLEUM PRODUCTS Conditional Use Permit No. 86-58 is a request to alter an existing gas station by adding a canopy and gas pumps at 18972 Beach Boulevard, along the Garfield Avenue side of the property. As required by the zoning code the gas station must be brought into conformance with all current code requirements for service stations. Conditional Exception No. 86-110 is a request to maintain a 200 square foot planter at the corner of Beach Boulevard and Garfield Avenue in lieu of 600 square feet, and a 5 foot wide planter along Beach Boulevard in lieu of 10 feet. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt under Class 1, Section 15301 from California Environmental Quality Act. REDEVELOPMENT,STATUS: The subject property is within the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area. The Redevelopment staff has reviewed the request and encourages improved landscaping and signage. Overall landscaping proposed for the site exceeds the required minimum 10% and conditions of approval require an architecturally compatible monument base be installed on the existing freestanding corner pole sign. PC Minutes - 1/21/87 -5- (7236d) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 86-58 and Conditional Exception No. 86-110 as modified by staff based on the findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED --- Carl Korndoeffor, Tait and Associates, spoke in support of the proposal. Bill Govey, representative from Arco, spoke in support of the proposal. He stated that an average gasoline station sells approximately 200,000 gallons of gas per month and this station is only selling 88,000 gallons and that he would encourage the Commission to approve the applicant's request because he felt that it would improve the sales of the station. Mike Othman, manager, spoke in support of the proposal. He expressed concern over Condition #6 prohibiting the operation of a snack shop. He stated that his station does contain vending machines and would like to keep them. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. The Commission expressed concern with the access point from the station site to the adjacent commercial center, the height of the price signs and the lack of ground cover in the planter areas. They felt that the spandrel signs should be deleted from the elevation plans and that the applicant should work with staff to relocate the price signs within another wider landscaped planter area. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD; SECOND BY HIGGINS, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-58 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-110, WITH MODIFIED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Summerell, Silva NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Livengood, Pierce, Higgins, FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-58: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the expanded service station will not be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; PC Minutes - 1/21/87 -6- (7236d) r� b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. 2. The proposed service station expansion is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan, Land Use Map and Redevelopment Project Area. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION N0, 86-110: 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning Ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classifications. The site is a corner lot with four existing driveways. 2. The granting of a Conditional Exception for reduction in specific landscaping requirements but not overall landscaping area is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The landscaping is being increased from 4.3% to 11% of the site which exceeds the minimum code requirement of 10%. 3. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 86-110 for reduction in specific landscaping requirements but not overall landscaping area will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classifications. 4. The granting of the Conditional Exception will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated December 12, 1986, shall be revised depicting the modifications described herein: a. A 5 foot wide planter of enhanced landscaping along Beach Bouevard adjacent to pump island. The price signs within the landscaped planter along Beach Boulevard shall be relocated to a location reviewed and approved by Development Services. b. Reciprocal access to adjacent easterly parcel in a location to be reviewed and approved by the Development Services Department. c. Spandrel signs shall be deleted from elevation plans. PC Minutes - 1/21/87 -7- (7236d) 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit the following plans: a. Landscape and irrigation plan to the Department of Development Services and Public Works for review and approval. Minimum 15 gallon trees shall be located along the interior property line planters at a forty-five (45) foot average on center. 3. Remove and replace driveway approaches on Garfield Avenue; driveways shall be a minimum twenty-seven feet (27') in width and shall be of radius type construction. 4. Remove and replace deteriorated sidewalk within right-of-way area as determined by Public Works. 5. Dedicate corner 27 foot right-of-way radius at the intersection of Garfield Avenue and Beach Boulevard per Public Works requirements. 6. The site shall be restricted to servicing of automobiles and sale of automobile -related products. A convenience market, "mini -market", or snack shop shall not be permitted without prior approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. 7. Proposed structures shall be architecturally compatible with existing structures. 8. If lighting is included in the parking lot, high-pressure sodium vapor lamps shall be used for energy savings. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties. 9. Prior to issuance of building permits, the subject property shall enter into irrevocable reciprocal driveway easement between the subject site and adjacent easterly property as noted in Condition lb. A copy of the legal instrument shall be approved by the City Attorney as to form and content and, when approved, shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder. A copy shall be filed with the Department of Development Services prior to occupancy. 10. All flammable liquid piping and dispensing system plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. System must comply with Article 79 Uniform Fire Code. 11. Supervision of Flammable Liquid Dispending must comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department standards. 12. An emergency fuel shut-off master switch must be provided in a location approved by the Fire Department. PC Minutes - 1/21/87 -8- (7236d) �J 13. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 14. The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State, and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards. 15. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 16. Development shall meet all local and State regulations regarding installation and operation of all underground storage tanks. 17. All signs shall be brought into compliance with the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code within 90 days from date of approval. a. A decorative monument base, architecturally compatible with the building, shall be provided on the corner identification sign. b. "No left turn" signs on both driveways off Garfield Avenue shall be installed. 18. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke this conditional use permit if any violation of these conditions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. C-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 86-62/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO, 86-107/SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO, 86-15 APPLICANT: LA PETITE ACADEMY Conditional Use Permit No. 86-62 is a request to permit a day care center for 180 children in a commercial zone. The parcel of land is located within Newland Center at 19860 Beach Boulevard, south of the Newland House and east of the Landmark Building. Conditional Exception No. 86-107 is a request to allow a 6 foot high wrought iron fence in lieu of the required 6.foot high masonry fence. A letter from the applicant has been received requesting that Special Sign Permit No. 86-15 be withdrawn. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The environmental impacts of the project were covered in EIR 79-3. The site was analyzed as a 21,000 square foot office building with greater traffic impacts than the day care center. REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: The project lies within the boundaries of the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project area. The Redevelopment staff has reviewed PC Minutes - 1/21/87 -9- (7236d) this project and approves of this use within Newland Center. Because this parcel is located adjacent to the Newland House, staff recommends that the project be reviewed by the Design Review Board. In addition, the Redevelopment Department requests that this project be conditioned that the owner of the Newland Center enter into an irrevocable reciprocal access agreement with the property to the north of the Newland Center. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 86-62 and Conditional Exception No. 86-107 based on the findings and conditions of approval and accept the withdrawal of Special Sign Permit No. 86-15. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Joe Remsa, applicant, spoke in support of the project. He stated that he had real concern with the condition -regarding the irrevocable access agreement. He feels the condition is vague and should be removed. The Deputy City Attorney was asked for a legal opinion regarding this condition since some of the Commissioners did not feel that the applicant should be conditioned for an agreement involving the owners of the property. The Attorney stated that the condition requested an offer to enter into an irrevocable agreement only and could legally be imposed under this entitlement. Mark Spiegel, owner of the property to the north of the subject site, stated that he is willing and ready to enter into a reciprocal agreement for access. He wants to recycle his property and would like to develop plans for better ingress and egress. He feels that there will be an increase in traffic due to this project and wants the impending dangerous situation addressed. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. The representative of the Newland Center property owner was asked if any discussions had occurred regarding the reciprocal agreement. Mr. John Bouva, property owner representative, stated that he had just received a letter requesting the agreement. He feels that since he does not know what the expansion plans are for the property to the north that the condition regarding the agreement is unfair to the applicant and the property owner. Some of the Commissioners felt that the condition requiring an offer for agreement should be imposed since this may be the last entitlement requested on the property in that it was the last vacant parcel. There is not a time frame imposed on the condition and this merely requires an offer to be made by the property owners. They also felt that since Beach Boulevard had been designated as a Super Street that now was the time to improve the ingress and egress to these centers. PC Minutes - 1/21/87 -10- (7236d) 1 1 The representative from the Fire Department stated that his department would like to see the condition imposed requiring the reciprocal agreement. Commissioner Livengood requested a straw vote be taken regarding the reciprocal agreement. MOTION: SHOULD CONDITION #6 BE DELETED AYES: Livengood, Pierce, Summerell, Silva NOES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Higgins STRAW VOTE PASSED A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SILVA, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-62 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-107 WITH THE DELETION OF CONDITION #6, AND REVISED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Livengood, NOES: Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Pierce, Higgins, Summerell, Silva A MOTION WAS MADE BY PIERCE, SECOND BY SILVA, TO ACCEPT THE WITHDRAWL OF SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 86-15, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Summerell, Silve NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Livengood, Pierce, Higgins, FINDINGS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 86-62: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of a day care center for 180 children will not be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. 2. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 86-62 will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. PC Minutes - 1/21/87 -11- (7236d) 3. The proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan and Land Use Map which designates this property as General Commercial. 4. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed use properly adapts the proposed structures to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. The entry to the building is from the northern parking lot so as not to impair access through the Newland Center. 5. The access to and parking for the proposed use does not create an undue traffic problem. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-107: 1. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 86-107 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification because the site is within a commercial area and does not abut any residential homes. 2. The granting of the conditional exception is necessary in order to preserve the historical character of the Newland Center and to insure a harmonious and aesthetically pleasing relationship with the Newland House located immediately north of the proposed child care center. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan and floor plans received and dated January 13, 1987, shall be the approved layout. 2. Revised building elevations which reflect the architectural quality and historical flavor of other structures within the Newland Center shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. 3. All applicable regulations of the Building Division and Fire Department shall be complied with prior to the operation of the day care center. 4. The maximum enrollment shall not exceed 180 children as specified by the applicant. The maximum occupancy at any given time shall not exceed 168 children or 1 child per 75 square feet of outdoor play area. Any increase in the number of children shall be subject to a new conditional use permit. 5. Prior to operation, the applicant shall file Department of Development Services a copy of the Orange County Social Services Department children. with the the license from permitting 180 1 PC Minutes - 1/21/87 -12- (7236d) 6. Planned Sign Program 81-1 shall be amended to address the signage for this parcel. No monument shall be allowed along Beach Boulevard or Adams Avenue. 7. The hours of operation for the day care center shall be limited to 6:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Friday. 8. The applicant shall obtain a business license prior to operation of the child care facility. 9. The child care facility shall comply with all applicable requirements of Chapter 8.40, Noise Control, of the Municipal Code. 10. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke this conditional use permit if any violation of these conditions of approval occurs. All revocation proceedings shall be preceded by a public hearing. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO ADD TO THE PENDING ITEMS LIST THE MATTER OF OBTAINING RECIPROCAL AGREEMENTS FROM THESE PROPERTY OWNERS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Higgins, Summerell, Silva NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 86-65 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS/TENTATIVE TRACT 12936/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86-39 APPLICANT: SOUTHRIDGE HOMES Conditional Use Permit No. 86-65 with Special Permits in conjunction with Tentative Tract 12936 and Coastal Development Permit is a reqeust to develop a three-story, with subterranean parking, 40-unit condominium project on a primarily vacant 0.88 acre site on Pacific Coast Highway in the Donwtown Specific Plan area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 86-65 with Special Permits in conjunction with Tentative Tract 12936 and Coastal Development Permit No. 86-39 to the February 3, 1987 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the applicant in order to prepare revised plans. PC Minutes - 1/21/87 -13- (7236d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY HIGGINS, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-65 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS, TENTATIVE TRACT 12936 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86-39, TO THE FEBRUARY 3, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Summerell, Silva NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Livengood, Pierce, Higgins, C-5 SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 86-16/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO, 86-103 APPLICANT: KEVIN VIDAL Site Plan Review No. 86-16 is a request to establish dual access from Frankfort Avenue and an existing alley located at 811 Frankfort Avenue (west side of Frankfort Avenue approximately 150 feet north of Hill Avenue). Conditional Exception No. 86-103 is a request to permit a 5 foot sideyard setback in lieu of 10.5 feet for the proposed carport and a 19 foot driveway in lieu of 22 feet. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed projects are exempt and 15305 from the provisions of Quality Act. SPECIFIC PLAN: pursuant to Class 1 Section 15301 the California Environmental The project is located within the Oldtown Specific Plan -District One. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny Site Plan Review No. 86-16 and Conditional Exception No. 86-103 based on the findings. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Kevin Vidal, applicant and property owner, spoke in support of the project. He stated that there are no parking or traffic problems on his street and that his proposed driveway would provide two more parking spaces for the residence. He further stated that another homeowner on the street was granted a curb cut. Martin Steigner, Academy Builders, spoke in support of the proejct. He feels that the proposed driveway will add another two to .three parking spaces and that the carport is not detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood.' He stated that this particular street ends 120 yards away from the house and that there are no existing traffic problems. 1 PC Minutes - 1/21/87 -14- (7236d) r� There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. Some of the Commissioners were concerned that conditional exceptions had already been granted in the neighborhood. A discussion ensued regarding the reasons for granting the other exceptions (the widths and shapes of the lots were unusual causing hardships to the property owners). Staff stated that this particular lot is 75 feet in width which is not a hardship. Commissioner Schumacher stated that she was not in favor of supporting a proposal that would gain one more designated space for the user and eliminate a public parking space. The granting of this exception without a proven hardship on the property would be setting a precedent in the area. Commissioner Higgins stated that there are six enclosed garages on the alley (two for each unit) and did not feel there was a necessity for parking off the driveway. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY HIGGINS, TO DENY SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 86-16 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-103, WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Pierce, Higgins NOES: Livengood, Summerell, Silva ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - SITE PLAN REVIEW NO, 86-16: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the proposed driveway may be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. 2. The granting of the site plan review will adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. The granting of the site plan review is not necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights because adequate parking can be provided on site without taking access off of Frankfort Avenue. PC Minutes - 1/21/87 -15- (7236d) FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-103: 1. Because the 9,000 square foot lot does not exhibit unique configurut.ion, shape or topographic features, there does not appear to be exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land, buildings or premises involved that does not apply generally to property or class of uses in the same district. 2. Since the subject property can be fully developed within regular established setbacks, and all parking requirements can be met on site, such a Conditional Exception is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. 3. Granting of Conditional Exception No. 86-103 would constitute a special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon properties in the vicinity. 4. Exceptional circumstances do not apply that deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same zone classifications since it can be fully developed with the maximum number of units allowed by code. C-6 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO, 86-111/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP N0, 86-418/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO, 87-1 APPLICANT: JAMES ZEITHING Tentative Parcel Map No. 86-418 in conjunction with Conditional Exception No. 86-111 is a request to allow a 50 foot wide lot in the Townlot area to be subdivided into two parcels, each having 25 feet of frontage. The location of the property is 420 12th. Street (east side of 12th. Street between Orange and Pecan. The applicant intends to build a single family residence on each of the parcels. Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Development Services posted draft Negative Declaration No. 87-1 for ten days, and no comments, either verbal or written were received. The staff, in its initial study of the project, has recommended that a negative declaration be issued. Prior to any action on Tentative Parcel Map No. 86-418 and Conditional Exception No. 86-111, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 87-1. WA go M •41U_ • Table Tentative Parcel Map No. 86-111 and Negative Declaration amendment to allow the creation Specific Plan area. 86-418, Conditional Exception No. No. 87-1 and initiate a code of 25 foot wide lots in the Townlot 1 PC Minutes - 1/21/87 -16- (7236d) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED James Ziething, applicant, spoke in support of the project. He stated that he has already spent quite a lot of money for construction and would like to have been informed that he might not be approved before going through plan check. He needs the lot split so that he can complete his construction. Mary Parker, 7216 Havenrock Drive, spoke in support of the project. Tom Van Tuyl, 1722 Park Street, spoke in support of the project. He stated that the approval of the lot split will enable the applicant to build two single family homes. He also stated that he would like to see the code amended at a later date. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Silva stated that he felt the code should be changed and the procedure corrected but felt, however, that the applicant should be granted an approval because other lots splits had been granted previously. Chairman Pierce felt that an approval should be given so that the applicant would not be penalized and detained in plan check because of bad timing by the City. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SILVA, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-111, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 86-418 and NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 87-1, WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Pierce, Summerell, Silva NOES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Higgins ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO, 86-111: 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, location or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classifications. Other parcels in the vicinity are 25 feet in width. 2. The granting of a conditional exception for 25 foot wide lots is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. Parity with other parcels in the vicinity will be achieved. PC Minutes - 1/21/87 -17- (7236d) 3. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 86-111 for 25 foot wide lot width will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classifications. Density factor for the parcel will not change. 4. The granting of the conditional exception for 25 foot wide lot width will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO, 86-418: 1. The proposed subdivision of two (2) parcels for purposes of residential uses is in compliance with the size and shape of property necessary for construction of dwelling units. 2. The General Plan has set forth provisions for medium density residential land uses as well as setting forth objectives for implementation of this type of use. 3. The size, depth, frontage, street width and other design and improvement features of the proposed subdivision will be constructed in compliance with standard plans and specifications on file with the City as well as in compliance with the State Map Act and supplemental City Subdivision Ordinance. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO, 86-418: 1. The tentative parcel map received by the Department of Development Services on December 18, 1986, shall be the approved layout. 2. A parcel map shall be filed with and approved by the Department of Public Works and recorded with the Orange County Recorder. 3. Two and one-half foot (2-1/2') alleyway along the rear property line shall be dedicated and improved to City standards. 4. Construct Public Works improvements as required. 5. All utilities shall be installed underground at the time said parcels are developed. 6. Compliance with all applicable City Ordinances except as noted under Conditional Exception No. 86-111. 7. A copy of the recorded parcel map shall be filed with the Department of Development Services. 8. This tentative parcel map shall be valid for one year from date of approval. PC Minutes - 1/21/87 -18- (7236d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO DIRECT STAFF TO INITIATE A CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW 25 FOOT WIDE LOTS IN THE TOWNLOT SPECIFIC PLAN AREA, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Higgins, Summerell, Silva NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 85-40 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-105 APPLICANT: STELLA TOLLY Conditional Use Permit No. 85-40 is a request to add a 592 square foot second unit to an existing 1,724 square foot single story single family dwelling located at 17192 Rotterdam Lane. Conditional Exception No. 86-105 is a request to allow 861 square feet of recreation open space in lieu of the required 900 square foot recreation open space. The proposed single story second unit will be located in the rear yard attached to the main dwelling unit. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class 1 Section 15301 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 85-40 based on the findings and conditions of approval outlined in this report. Deny Conditional Exception No. 86-105 based on findings outlined in this report. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Dave Taylor spoke on behalf of the applicant in support of the proposed project. He stated that the addition is for the applicant's mother. He presented several letters from adjacent neighbors supporting the project. John Zisko, 17182 Rotterdam Lane, spoke in opposition to the project. He presented a petition in opposition signed by adjacent property owners. Michael Maher, 17181 Rotterdame Lane, spoke in opposition to the request. He stated that he objects to second units being added to single family homes in the neighborhood that may be later rented out. He further stated that there are already a lot of cars parked at this residence. PC Minutes - 1/21/87 -19- (7236d) John C. Lynch, 17201 Kampen Lane, spoke in opposition to the request. Natalie Kosch, realtor, spoke in support of granny units and to the proposed request even though the open space requirements were not being met. She urged the Commission to approve the project. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. Chairman Pierce stated that granny units are allowed by law. Commissioner Higgins felt that the applicant could meet the open space requirements by revising his plans. Commissioner Livengood reported that he had driven by the residence and noticed many parked cars in the driveway, a trailer parked in front of the house, and a commercial van in the driveway being supported by a rock under the front wheel. He stated that he would like to see a continuance on the request and further evaluation of this property to determine if code violations exist. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY HIGGINS, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-40 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-105, TO THE FEBRUARY 3, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood; Higgins, Summerell, Silva NOES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Pierce ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-8 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO, 86-12 APPLICANT: K. L. GUPTA Special Sign Permit No. 86-12 is a request to permit the installation of a 10 foot high, 50 square foot internally illuminated identification and price sign. The proposed location is at the corner of Magnolia Street and Garfield Avenue and will replace a 35 foot, non -conforming freestanding Shell Oil sign. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt pursuant to Class 11(a) Section 15311 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Special Sign Permit No. 86-12 based on the findings and conditions of approval. PC Minutes - 1/21/87 -20- (7236d) 1 1 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPNED K. L. Gupta, applicant, spoke in support of the project and stated that he was available to answer any questions. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY HIGGINS, TO APPROVE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 86-12, WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Summerell, Silva NOES: None ASBSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: Livengood, Pierce, Higgins, 1. The proposed 10 foot high, 50 square foot freestanding sign will not adversely affect other signs in the area. 2. The proposed J.0 foot high, 50 square foot freestanding sign will not be detrimental to property located in the vicinity. 3. The proposed 10 foot high, 50 square foot freestanding sign will be in keeping with the character of other identification and price signs in the near vicinity. 4. The proposed 10 foot high, 50 square foot freestanding sign is located behind a 25 foot corner cut-off and will not obstruct the vision of vehicular or pedestrian traffic. 5. The proposed sign needs to be 10 feet in order to be visible over a traffic control boa which is located directly in front of the location of the proposed sign. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan and elevations which depicts the elimination of separate freestanding price signs. PC Minutes - 1/21/87 -21- (7236d). D. ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING: D-1 SITE PLAN REVIEW NO, 86-17 APPLICANT: JAMES ZIETHING Site Plan Review No. 86-17 is a request to permit the construction of a single family dwelling on a 25 foot wide lot located at 116 18th. Street, on the east side of 18th. Street approximately 75 feet south of Walnut Avenue. The Downtown Specific Plan permits residential uses in District 2 subject to the Planning Commission's approval of a site plan review. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt from environmental review because it is in conformance with the Downtown Specific Plan EIR pursuant to Section 15182 of the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. COASTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically excluded from the requirement of a coastal development permit pursuant to Section 989.5.3.15(e) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. SPECIFIC PLAN: The property is located within the Downtown Specific Plan, which governs the development of the parcels. Since the Specific Plan does not contain standards for single family residential development, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 1356, which states that the certain Townlot Specific Plan Standards for single. family units shall apply. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Site Plan Review No. 86-17 based on the findings and conditions of approval. A MOTION WAS MADE BY HIGGINS, SECOND BY SILVA, TO APPROVE SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 86-17, WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Higgins, Summerell, Silva NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 1/21/87 -22- (7236d) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposal for a single family residence will not have any detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. 2. The proposed single family residence will not adversely affect the General Plan of Land Use. Single family dwellings are a permitted use. 3. The proposed single family residence is compatible with other existing uses and proposed uses in the neighborhood. 4. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed residential development properly orients the proposed structure to streets, driveways, sunlight, wind, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. 5. Access to and parking for the proposed single family dwelling will not create any undue traffic problem. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated January 13, 1987, shall be revised to reflect the following: a. Small panes on all windows. - b. Add additional relief strip along eave to create greater variation and better shadow effect. c. Use bright accent trim color such as aqua, blue, or orange, rather than the proposed dark brown. d. Stucco shall be light lace or fine grain texture. e. Windows and chimney cap shall be painted in a bright accent color. f. Roof shall be mission tile, as proposed. g. Revise roof design over stairway to rear deck area with a tower -like appearance having a tile cap. h. Provide more variation in roof line. i. Comply with maximum site coverage requirement. 2. Should existing or former abandoned oil wells be found on the property, the oil wells must comply with Fire Department standards and Department of Gas standards for abandonment prior to issuance of building permits. 6 PC Minutes - 1/21/87 -23- (7236d) 3. The project shall comply with all provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and building division. 4. The applicant shall dedicate to the City of Huntington Beach: a. Two and one-half feet on the rear alley; 5. The applicant shall construct all street and alley improvements as required by the Public Works Department. 6. The curb and gutter on 18th. Street shall be moved 29-1/2 feet from centerline of street to accommodate future cul-de-sac at Pacific Coast Highway. 7. Submit grading plan. 8. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. 9. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 10. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off -site facility equipped to handle them. 11. If foil -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Division. 12. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer. This analysis shall include on -site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets, and utilities. 13. Prior to issuance of building permits, the property owner shall sign, notarize, and record with the County Recorder a "Letter of Agreement" assuring that the single family residence will be maintained as one (1) dwelling unit. D-2 SITE PLAN REVIEW NO, 87-1 APPLICANT: JAMES ZIETHING Site Plan Review No. 87-1 is a request to permit the construction of a single family dwelling on a 25 foot wide lot located at 118 18th. Street, on the east side of 18th. Street approximately 50 feet south of Walnut Avenue. The Downtown Specific Plan permits residential uses in District 2 subject to the Planning Commission's approval of a site plan review. PC Minutes - 1/21/87 -24- (7236d) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt from environmental review because it is in conformance with the Downtown Specific Plan EIR pursuant to Section 15182 of the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. The proposed project is categorically excluded from the requirement of a coastal development permit pursuant to Section 989.5.3.15(e) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. SPECIFIC PLAN: The property is located within the Downtown Specific Plan, which governs the development of the parcels. Since the Specific Plan does not contain standards for single family residential development, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 1356, which states that the certain Townlot Specific Plan Standards for single family units shall apply. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Site Plan Review No. 87-1 based on the findings and conditions of approval. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SILVA, TO APPROVE SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 87-1, WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Higgins, Summerell, Silva NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ryto �o1;Jt�Y• M FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposal for a single family residence will not have any detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. 2. The proposed single family residence will not adversely affect the General Plan of Land Use. Single family dwellings are a permitted use. 3. The proposed single family residence is compatible with other existing uses and proposed uses in the neighborhood. PC Minutes - 1/21/87 -25- (7236d) 4. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed residential development properly orients the proposed structure to streets, driveways, sunlight, wind, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. 5. Access to and parking for the proposed single family dwelling will not create any undue traffic problem. KON 1440#0)0 •- _* 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated January 13, 1987, shall be revised to reflect the following: a. Small panes on all windows. b. Add additional relief strip along eave to create greater variation and better shadow effect. c. Use bright accent trim color such as aqua, blue, or orange, rather than the proposed dark brown. d. Stucco shall be light lace or fine grain texture. e. Windows and chimney cap shall be painted in a bright accent color. f. Roof shall be mission tile, as proposed. g. Revise roof design over stairway to rear deck area with a tower -like appearance having a tile cap. h. Provide more variation in roof line. i. Comply with maximum site coverage requirement. j. Make some cosmetic and color changes between this building and the building proposed as Site Plan Review No. 86-17 to be located next door. 2. Should existing or former abandoned oil wells be found on the property, the oil wells must comply with Fire Department standards and Department of Gas standards for abandonment prior to issuance of building permits. 3. The project shall comply with all provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and building division. 4. The applicant shall dedicate to the City of Huntington Beach: a. Two and one-half feet on the rear alley; 5. The applicant shall construct all street and alley improvements as required by the Public Works Department. PC Minutes - 1/21/87 -26- (7236d) 6. The curb and gutter on 18th. from centerline of street to Pacific Coast Highway. 7. Submit grading plan. Street shall be moved 29-1/2 feet accommodate future cul-de-sac at 8. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. 9. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 10. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at -an off -site facility equipped to handle them. 11. If foil -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Division. 12. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer. This analysis shall include on -site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets, and utilities. 13. Prior to issuance of building permits, the property owner shall sign, notarize, and record with the County Recorder a "Letter of Agreement" assuring that the single family residence will be maintained as one (1) dwelling unit. D-3 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FILING DATE SCHEDULING On January 6, 1987, the Planning Commission continued action on the resolution adopting General Plan Amendment filing dates so that revisions could be made to the schedule. Specifically, it was requested that the filing dates for General Plan Amendment 87-1 and 87-2 be added to the resolution and that the probable hearing date for General Plan Amendment 88-1 be moved from April 1988 to February 1988. These changes have been incorporated into the attached staff report and resolution. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1340, FOR THE ESTABLISHING THE FINAL FILING DATES FOR FOUR ANNUAL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, BY TH FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Summerell, Silva NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 140TION PASSED Livengood, Pierce, Higgins, PC Minutes - 1/21/87 -27- (7236d),-, RESOLUTION NO. 1340 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A TIME SCHEDULE OF LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 1987 WHEREAS, The Planning Commisson of the City of Huntington Beach desires to establish dates for the calendar year 1987 for Land Use Element amendments to the General Plan, and WHEREAS, Amendment to the Land Use Element and the amendment procedures is necessaary to update and refine the General Plan, and WHEREAS, to provide sufficient time for comprehensive analysis of each request in the Land Use Element amendments to the General Plan for 1987. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach hereby adopts said amendment schedule for calendar year 1987 to be as follows: 87-1 87-2 87-3 87-4 88-1 August 30, 1986 December 30, 1986 March 30, 1987 July 31, 1987 November 30, 1987 E. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None F. PENDING ITEMS LIST: January 1987 April 1987 July 1987 November 1987 February 1988 An up-to-date list was presented that included dates on all items sent up to the Attorney's office for prosecution. The following items were added to the Pending Items List: FOLLOW UP ON OBTAINING THE IRREVOCABLE RECIPROCAL ACCESS AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER OF NEWLAND CENTER AND MARK SPIEGEL (OWNER OF HUNTINGTON LANES PROPERTY) 'HECK ILLEGALLY PARKED TRAILERS AND CARS, NUMBER OF FAMILIES OCCUPYING HOME AND POSSIBLE ILLEGAL BUSINESS IN SINGLE FAMILY HOME AT 17192 ROTTERDA14 LANE PC Minutes - 1/21/87 -28- (7236d) G. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: G-1 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES PLANNING COMMISSION TRAINING MEETING - Scheduled for March 11, 12, and 13, in Sacramento. Commissioners Higgins, Summerell and Livengood will confirm their reservations at the Workshop scheduled for January 31, 1987. H. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: I. There was a discussion regarding the Planning Commission Workshop scheduled for January 31, 1987. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PIERCE, SECOND BY SILVA, AT 10:50, TO ADJOURN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 31, 1987, 8:30 AM, IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM OF THE SEACLIFF COUNTRY CLUB - 6501 PALM AVENUE, HUNTINGTON BEACH, AND THEN TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 3, 1987, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Higgins, Summerell, Silva NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED APPROVED: C e Pierce, Chairman 1 PC Minutes - 1/21/87 -29- (7236d)